Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Justice Robert D Austin of the Superior Court made an excellent decision regarding a dog seizure in Spokane. WA.Here's the declaration:

"Declaratory JudgementAs a matter of law, the administrative procedures used in the City of Spokane regarding dangerous dog determinations and appeals from those determinations violate the due process rights both on their face and as applied. Appellant's dogs should be released to them immediately and reasonable attorney's fees should be paid by the city."

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Monday, November 19, 2007

Canine Control Bylaws fall under municipal jurisdiction. Each municipality has its own bylaws. From time to time they are reviewed, usually to address certain problems that arise within a community. Problems arise within communities that are sometimes not defined properly in existing bylaws. Sometimes there is adequate existing legislation that simply falls behind in the evolution of technology or business. Another common factor surrounding legislation and municipal bylaws is simple and outright politics.Personal agendas and new-found power are contributing factors in some cases. Over the past year, I have had the experience in my home municipality of weathering the storm of proposed amendments to the canine control bylaw. My home municipality is New Tecumseth. This includes the amalgamated towns of Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham, Ontario. Initially there was a committee formed, as requested by the past ACO officer. The issue of puppy mills and noise were two issues the officer wanted to address. The first and second meetings included a local, well rounded, experienced group of canine experts. There were people on the committee who represented training, boarding/daycare, veterinary services, the municipal pound, the Humane Society, breeders, town staff (town clerk), the animal control officer and me (representing the DLCC). Within a week after the second meeting, an email was sent out eliminating all but the town staff (ACO officer, municipal pound contract persons, Humane Society secretary and town clerk).Several meetings which in my opinion resulted in wasted time and taxpayer dollars produced this draft proposal. On reading the draft, my immediate thought was "This bylaw does nothing to encourage or foster responsible pet ownership. The underlying theme feels more like take your dogs and dog related business and get the hell out of our township!" My vision of a harmonious community is one where pet owners and non-pet owners live happily together. The more services and resources provided in a community to foster responsible pet ownership, the better. What is it that aids in fostering responsible pet ownership?In my opinion, places to take your pets to socialize and train them come to mind. Training facilities, boarding/daycare kennels and places to walk and run your dog provide positive resources for pet owners. Demanding a minimum of five acres of land for any dog-related business is a deterrent no matter how you slice it. Many training facilities, boarding/daycare kennels, groomers and sport clubs operate very successfully in commercial spaces in any city or town. Most of the well known reputable training/boarding/daycare businesses I know do not have any land surrounding their businesses.Several weeks ago a resident of Erin, Ontario contacted the DLCC about a draft proposal. I was alarmed to see the similarity between the draft proposal in Erin and New Tecumseth. This leads me to believe there is a connection between municipal bylaws. Being my suspicious self, I wonder if there is some indirect PETA link? I honestly don't feel there is enough intelligence in small town politics to form a link with animal rights groups, however I do believe these groups are sitting back enjoying a "trickle down effect" of seeds they have planted across the continent. If we are not careful and vigilant in staying aware of what is actually happening behind closed doors in our communities, amendments to bylaws and new shoddy legislation will pass without our knowledge. AR groups and people in places of power with ulterior motives or a hidden agenda count on complacency and political blindness. When is the last time you checked your town or city's website to investigate what's on the agenda for the next council meeting? When is the last time you checked your local bylaws to see if there have been any recent amendments? If you find yourself in a position where amendments are being drafted in your town or city you need to inform yourself and others of the proposed changes. A petition is a good place to start in your protest against the proposed legislation. The New Tecumseth petition is available to download and print here.Clear and concise written submissions plus speaking to councillors at town meetings are beneficial. If you feel there are flaws with draft legislation you must point out what the flaws are but it is pointless to point out flaws without giving practical alternatives. Good common sense goes a long way. Unfortunately there seems to be a serious lack of common sense in a growing number of pet-related bylaws. Anti-dog and anti-pet sentiment seems to be on an upswing. Whether it is due to overpopulation (of humans) or a general lack of tolerance, I'm not to sure. I suspect there are many contributing factors. A few bad apples among pet owners do damage. Let's face it, the percentage of irresponsible pet owners is quite small compared to those who mind their own business and use the golden rule when it comes to their pets. These irresponsible pet owners are the same people who have no regard for others in many ways. If everyone trained, socialized, picked up their pet's waste and respected people's space and property we wouldn't have problems, would we? Maybe people are just too busy. Life has sped up to the point where we cannot possibly look after all we need to over the course of a day. People are now taught they can have it all. On top of an already busy life they get a pet, or two. Responsible owners know how much time is involved to properly care for pets. We all make choices and live with those choices in our lives. It doesn't have to be difficult. One city in Canada has figured out what works. Calgary has had a plan in place for over 15 years. The Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylawis a model that can be incorporated into any town or city.Calgary has a 90 - 95% dog licensing compliance rate. Most cities in Ontario have licensing compliance of 10 - 20%. Calgary has done this by providing benefits to people for licensing their pets. Animal control is a service as opposed to "the enemy". Every dollar they raise from licensing and fines go into funding animal control - not back into General Revenue. They strongly encourage microchipping which allows dogs found at large to be scanned right in the animal officers' vehicles and returned home for free on a first offense. If your dog is found at large more than once a fine will follow. The free ride home service is a perk for people who obey the rules and saves money in animal control costs because the dogs aren't entering the pound. If a dog does make its way to the pound a photo is taken and placed on their web page within 15 minutes. All dogs are treated for basic disease and if injured will be taken to a vet. Vets treat the animals because the high compliance of licensing makes it easy to find the owner! If the owner is not found, ACO will cover the medical costs. Calgary built a new shelter for its animals about 5 years ago that is state of the art and has never been filled to capacity! Calgary also has the most off-leash areas of any city in Canada. They have both dog parks and non-dog parks. Both pet owners and non-pet owners live harmoniously.Why would other towns and cities not want to adopt a plan that has been in place and proved itself a winner? Why reinvent the wheel? Maybe because they simply don't know about it yet. Present the model to your municipality to show them there is an alternative out there. Towns and cities, if they are smart, like plans that run smoothly and quiet the waters. They really like plans that fund themselves!I have officially given Calgary thegrand pooh bah award!Other towns such as Pembroke, Ontario have been recipients of the Tin Pot award!New Tecumseth is officially on the PENDING Tin Pot award list. There is an easy way to get off the pending list and on to the Grand Pooh Bah list. The way to Pooh Bah land is through making the right choice for the community. Listen to the community! Trash the draft and call in the experts. Let's make a difference in our town, city, municipality, province and country. We deserve so much more. Our pets deserve so much more! Dogs have lived with humans for thousands of years. Sometimes I can't imagine why they continue the love affair, but that is what a loyal, trusted friend does. We owe it to them to make it right!If you would like to print off a petition from the above link, please collect and bring your petitions to the town council meeting. Please visit this site after November 30th for notice of date, time and agenda. I will post the details as they are made available. In the meantime pass this along to all your friends in the community. We will collect the petitions at the council meeting.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Originally run in the New Yorker in February, 2006, Malcolm Gladwell's article about profiling is well worth a second look.

One afternoon last February, Guy Clairoux picked up his two-and-a half-year-old son, Jayden, from day care and walked him back to their house in the west end of Ottawa, Ontario. They were almost home. Jayden was straggling behind, and, as his father’s back was turned, a pit bull jumped over a back-yard fence and lunged at Jayden. “The dog had his head in its mouth and started to do this shake,” Clairoux’s wife, JoAnn Hartley, said later. As she watched in horror, two more pit bulls jumped over the fence, joining in the assault.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

When the residents of Ontario were first attempting to talk reason with the provincial government about managing dangerous dogs, virtually every expert in the fields of dog behaviour and bite prevention told the government to look at Calgary, an example of extraordinary successes.Unfortunately, this government was so caught up in its "pit bull" mania that it chose not to see the ultimate "win-win" solution that was sitting right in front of it.When various groups offered to pay ALL expenses for Bill Bruce, manager of Calgary's animal control department, to fly to Toronto and present his city's successes to the legislative committee, the Liberal members of that committee refused.

Yet, the government was more than willing to sit down face-to-face with Tim Dack, manager of Winnipeg's animal control department, to hear the praises of that city's breed-specific legislation, even though Winnipeg's annual number of bites did not go down for 10 years and finally decreased only when Winnipeg implemented Calgary's solutions.Cities like Winnipeg, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Windsor, and provinces like Ontario, can only dream of reaching the bite reduction levels of Calgary, because they are not committed to the same ideals.

Although these cities and province have publicly stated a desire to reduce ALL dog bites, these measures were basically thrown in as afterthoughts, appeasements, when the only thing they really wanted was the "quick fix" of looking like they were doing something RIGHT NOW (i.e., the breed ban).

Yes, it takes some work and some initial seed money to start the Calgary method. But, it pays for itself quickly and just look at the results.Their Summer 2007 Animal & Bylaw Services newsletter gives an astounding summary of the success of this program. I have included the full text of the article below.

The Pawsitive Times
The City of Calgary Animal & Bylaw Services
Vol.7 Issue 2
Summer 2007ON THEIR BEST BEHAVIOUR

Reduction in aggressive dog incidents, despite city’s growthWith the ever-increasing human population in Calgary there’s also been tremendous growth in the canine population. It’s estimated that there are about 105,000 dogs in Calgary – one for every nine people in the city. Of these, more than 90,000 are currently licensed with The City of Calgary.

The good news is that despite the fact that there are more dogs in Calgary than ever before, aggressive dog incidents reported to The City have actually gone down by 56 per cent. From 2005 to 2006, the number of reported aggressive dog incidents dropped from 162 to 72. Biting incidents were also down by 21 per cent, with 199 reported incidents and chase/threats down nearly 30 per cent.

But this doesn’t mean that aggressive dogs are not still a concern to The City of Calgary. Even one dog bite is one too many. Victims of attacks are often left with both physical and emotional scars and, in rare cases in North America, people have been mauled to death by aggressive dogs.The positive change is a direct result of The City of Calgary Animal & Bylaw Services making people more responsible for the actions of their pets,” explains Director Bill Bruce. “In March 2006, we introduced the Responsible Pet Ownership (RPO) Bylaw which has many new regulations to ensure that both people and pets can live in harmony. The key to the success of the new bylaw is public education. Getting our responsible pet ownership message out to the public always has been, and always will be, critical to the success of this or any other
bylaw changes.”

In the new RPO Bylaw a number of fines were increased to reflect the severity of non-compliance. A new penalty structure which escalates with the level of aggression displayed by the dog was also introduced. The owners of a dog that bites someone face a fine of $350. The owners of a dog that attacks someone causing serious injury face a fine of $1,500.The City delivers its message through a variety of public awareness campaigns and educational initiatives such as in-school presentations, attendance at various pet-related events and publications like Pawsitive Times.

Public relations efforts focus on teaching children how to be respectful of dogs, how to avoid dog bites and making people aware that aggression is not breed-specific. Any dog can bite, chase or threaten a person. The German Shepherd pictured here, for example, is a breed that has been both feared and revered. Yet this intelligent and loyal breed has a long history of service to people in everything from acting as guide dogs for the blind, to search and rescue and police work. The bottom line is that proper training and control of all dogs are critical to ensuring public safety.The real key to the success of the RPO Bylaw is the citizens of Calgary. A large percentage of the city’s canine population is spayed or neutered. Owners of dogs and cats that are spayed or neutered save money by paying a lower licensing fee. The community benefits because, statistically speaking, altered pets are less likely to roam and fight, become aggressive and have unwanted offspring.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Bill is the manager of Animal Control for Calgary and, based on the comments here, that city is incredibly far ahead in their animal control philosophy.Note that when the Ontario Liberal government was asked to allow Bill to make a verbal presentation to their Dog Owners' Liability Act committee hearings, they refused.Yet they met personally with Tim Dack from Winnipeg, a city that has had a breed ban in place since 1991, yet was only able to reduce their dog bites 10 years later when they copied Calgary's policies.Talk about ignoring the experts and only listening to people who parrot exactly what you're trying to ram through!Click here to read Brent's summary of Bill's presentationNote that the "KC" mentioned throughout his article refers to Kansas City, where Brent is based.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

We were contacted this week by one of our readers in response to the article “Persecution, Ontario Style”. She was offering support in light of a very similar incident which happened last year to her mother, who wishes to remain anonymous.

The reader’s mother lives in Thornhill, Ontario. Thornhill is a well-to-do area just north of Toronto where the houses are large and well kept and the residents tend to be educated and successful.

On a hot summer day in July, 2006, out of the blue, the doorbell rang.

The 64-year-old woman opened the door to find an Animal Control Officer (ACO) standing there. As it was such a hot day, she invited the officer into the house where it was cooler. He asked if he could see her dog. The woman obliged, assuming they were following up on the licensing program in Thornhill.

“Lucky”, a five-year-old Labrador Retriever, was licensed with the city. The woman went into the backyard and brought Lucky, who was wearing her collar and licence tag, into the house to meet the ACO.

The officer began to take many pictures of Lucky. He didn't ask Lucky's breed, age or anything else about her.

After he had taken the photos, he pulled out some papers which explained DOLA (Dog Owners Liability Act) and the amendments which ban American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and any dogs which are substantially similar to those breeds.

He then informed the woman that he was taking Lucky with him to be destroyed.

The shocked and horrified dog owner didn’t understand what was happening. She started to cry for fear of what would happen to her dog. To have an ACO arrive at your house unexpectedly and to invite them in on a hot day and then hear them say that they are taking your dog for destruction is almost incomprehensible.

At this point, the woman’s husband came into the room. He promptly escorted the officer off the property and told him not to come back unless he had a warrant and court order for the destruction of their dog.

One month later, two police officers showed up at this couple’s door and charged them under DOLA with owning a prohibited dog.

The couple took the registration papers to their set court date which proved their dog is not banned in the province of Ontario. The charges were dismissed.

Imagine what would have happened had Lucky not been a registered purebred dog. How many dogs in the province are unregistered? How many are mixed breed dogs that CANNOT be registered? There is NO proof of your dog’s breed without registration papers. The Canadian Kennel Club estimates that only 10% of Ontario dogs are purebred and registered. That means that 90% of all dogs in Ontario cannot have their lineage proved. That means that 90% of all dogs in Ontario, when found in this situation could lose their lives if they are not Lucky!

The couple feel this whole situation may have started over a neighbour dispute over how to cut the hedge bordering on both properties. They have no proof because Animal Control won't release the names of complainants, but can’t think of any other reason why that ACO came knocking on their door on that nightmarish day.

Between the time of the visit and subsequent charges being laid and the court appearance the woman had a heart attack and was diagnosed with stomach ulcers. Her doctor attributed both to stress!

We hope she is well on her way to recovery!

It is sickening to think about what this Ontario Liberal Government has done to responsible citizens of this province!

It is now a crime to own somebody's idea of the wrong shape of dog in Ontario!

It makes us very angry to know that responsible dog owners in the Province of Ontario were legislated into SECOND CLASS STATUS AND HAD THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS STRIPPED BECAUSE OF GRANDSTANDING AND GOVERNMENT IRRESPONSIBILITY!!

Footnotes:

Lucky is a shorter than standard, stocky pet dog. In the words of the owner “she still looks like a Lab, just a fat one!”

Lucky was named as such because the woman felt she was “lucky” her husband agreed to let her get a dog..

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

She was at home with her two young children one afternoon in July when there was a knock at the door. An ACO officer said he was there to follow up on a complaint. He did not specify what the complaint was, however later she found out it was someone in her apartment building complained she owned “pit bulls”.

This person has 2 dogs. One is 1 ½ years old (a Jack Russell Terrier mix) and the other is a 4 month old pup she describes as a hound cross. The hound cross was given to her by another couple who told her they could not keep the dog and couldn’t think of a better home for him.

The ACO officer asked if he could come in. She then invited him in, not suspecting any trouble since she had done nothing wrong. Her dogs are and have been always under her watchful eye, leashed on walks and they play with all the children who live in the apartment building. Once the ACO officer was in her apartment he asked her “have you ever heard of the “pit bull” ban”? She was quite shocked and answered, “yes I have heard of it, but it doesn’t apply to me or my dogs since I do not own ‘pit bulls’.” The ACO officer then asked her if he could take some pictures of her dogs. She agreed, thinking it was for a licensing infraction. He had also asked her if her dogs were licensed. The woman told me her dogs sat quietly while he snapped several pictures of them from several different angles. During this process, the woman’s children were becoming quite nervous and upset with the ACO officer’s tone. They started to ask if this man was going to take their dogs and began to cry. The ACO officer then told the children he was not going to take their dogs and asked the woman to come out to the hall to speak to him privately.

He told the dog owner out in the hall that "having this breed of dog is the same as possessing illegal drugs". He handed her his business card and a blank SPCA card with 'Surrender for Destruction" written on it.

He also gave her three pamphlets: the City Bylaw, the Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA) section on 'Pit Bull' Controls and the entire DOLA.

The dog owner was dumbfounded. She didn't understand what was wrong.

He told her the dogs had to be destroyed. He made an appointment to come back the next day at the same time to collect the dogs if she hadn't already turned them in. He warned her to be sure the dogs were handed in or were there when he returned. He cautioned her not to think of moving them to a nearby town. "If they go anywhere, it has to be out of province".

When he returned the next day to carry out his task, she told him the dogs were gone.

"What?" was his response "Where are they? Where are the dogs?"

"They're not here. If you have any paperwork, then charge me with something".

"Where are the dogs?"

"Sorry sir, they're not here"

He tried to get into her apartment to look around.

She told him to come back with a warrant, slammed the door and locked it.

It took one month for anyone to contact the woman again regarding this matter. However, several weeks ago, police knocked at her door to formally charge her with 2 counts of owning a prohibited dog under DOLA.

On August 29, 2005, against significant expert opposition, the Ontario Liberal government implemented Bill 132 (2005) to amend the existing Dog Owners' Liability Act. This document attempts to summarize the key changes to the Act.

§The law defines a "pit bull" as a pit bull terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, an American Pit Bull Terrier, or a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those dogs. If your dog appears to be in this category and your dog lived in Ontario on August 29, 2005, or was born in Ontario before November 27, 2005, you own a "restricted dog". Restricted dogs must be muzzled, leashed, and sterilized. If your dog appears to be in this category and it was born in Ontario after November 26, 2005, or was brought into Ontario after August 29, 2005, your dog is illegal. It could be confiscated and destroyed and you could be fined up to $10,000 and sentenced to up to six months in jail.

I have kept in close contact with this woman. She feels very isolated and afraid for her dogs' lives, her children’s wellbeing (they have been in a state of fear since this all began) and is nervous about having been charged under provincial legislation, which carries a harsh penalty if found guilty. In further communication with her I've learned of several different points that have come to light since her initial visit from the ACO.

Apparently, there is a licensing push on at the apartment complex. Bylaw officers have been visiting the apartment buildings, selling licence tags door-to-door. They are trying to boost licensing compliance, which is at about 10% across the province.

The dogs in question are mainly white, medium-small dogs which to me look like pariahs - I have pictures which I don't want to post here. They could be anything but the Jack Russell mix description fits very well. The pup is too young at four months to be more than a white, short-haired pup with a longish snout and some black markings.

I asked if she had any ideas about how the officer happened to be carrying a camera. She suspects, but can't prove, that the new superintendents reported all the dog owners to Bylaw enforcement. Apparently the new superintendents have been hassling people about their dogs.

She has never had any complaints from anyone about her dogs. They are well behaved and the older one is very obedient and gets along with everybody. Immediately following the first visit from the ACO officer ALL the children who live in the apartment building wrote letters to the officer telling him how all the kids play with these two dogs. They expressed how they know and love these dogs and that they would not hurt anyone.

For the dogs’ safety, they were sent to a safe place. They will not return home until this court case is over. Their lives depend on it and the woman is not willing to take any chances. The kids miss their dogs, Mum misses the dogs and you can bet the dogs miss everybody. The woman has retained a lawyer and her first day in court is next week.

If you are an Ontario dog owner and your pet could be even remotely construed to be a 'pit bull' as described in the Ontario Liberals' pet piece of discriminatory legislation, please take steps to protect your pet.

What this story illustrates is that the message from above is that it's OK to persecute people based on a subjective belief and that if they are perceived as easy targets, all the better.

Until the Ontario law is overturned or repealed, please keep your dog (and yourself) safe from harm.

1. Ensure that your dog is licensed and leashed in public, regardless of breed. Avoid allowing members of the public to interact directly with your dog.

2. If you think your dog fits the 'pit bull' physical description, or if you've licensed your dog as a 'pit bull', American Pit Bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire Bull terrier or cross of those breeds, follow the leashing, muzzling and neutering restrictions in the law. Be aware that you are at risk. You may be subject to spot checks by officials in your area.

3. If your dog is a mongrel of unknown ancestry, license him or her as a mixed breed - because that is the only possible description.

4. Don't let the authorities bully you or make you feel as if you are breaking the law. Make them prove their case.

5. Your veterinarian will not divulge any treatment info or details about your dog to authorities without your consent. It is similar to human health care information - private. Your veterinarian may indicate that a dog is a patient at the clinic but that's all they will say.

6. If you have not entered your show dog in a sanctioned conformation event (CKC, UKC, ADBA, AKC) yet this year, don't put it off any longer. Enter one now or your dog could be confiscated and killed for being intact.

7. If you find yourself in a position similar to the one described in the story, do not say anything to officials. Do not invite them in to your home. Do not let them interact with your dog(s) no matter what kind of dog you own or how nice the ACO’s seem. Tell them that unless they have a warrant, they cannot enter your premises and then close your door.

Hang tough.

Being a dog owner in Ontario doesn't mean you've given up all of your constitutional rights, even though it often seems that way.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Once upon a time, in a province called Ontario, a man named Dalton McGuinty wanted to become premier so badly that he made many promises. He said he would not raise taxes. He promised to close the dirty coal-burning plants. He would help autistic children, relieve gridlock problems and help immigrants have their qualifications recognized in Canada.

Here is the A to Z story of what happened when this man gained power.

A is for the autistic children.

Once elected McGuinty failed to provide the funding he had promised during his election campaign. If that wasn't enough, he then fought the parents in court. Twice. One member of parliament tried to find out how much public money was spent on the court case, but the Attorney General refused to say. He used public funds, but then said the public did not have the right to know how much the legal action cost.

B is for broken promises.

Fifty to be precise. Once in power McGuinty abandoned his list of promises, passing the blame off on the previous government. But there was a problem with his claim, because when he found a large surplus just before the next election he didn't use it to make good on any of his previous promises. No. McGuinty used the money to try to buy votes with new promises.

C is for the dirty coal plants that are still open.

McGuinty promised he would close coal-fired electricity plants by 2007. They are still burning, still polluting, while McGuinty pounds the campaign trail.

D is for the dogs that have been killed or sent to animal research.

The Attorney General said he would listen to the experts, but when every expert at the public hearings opposed the ban the Liberals pushed the law through. McGuinty and his party knew that passing the ban was going to hurt responsible dog owners and that it would result in the needless deaths of thousands of animals. They passed the law anyway.

E is for egotistical.

McGuinty broke promises, but expects voters to simply forgive him. He acts like the cat that's caught the canary, pleased with himself for getting away with his unacceptable behaviour.

F is for fear mongering.

How do you distract the public away from your long list of broken promises? Why not say you are going to ban things. Ban sushi, t-shirts, smoking in designated smoking rooms, dogs … the list goes on. Then if people are busy being afraid, maybe they won't notice what a bad job you're doing of governing.

G is for giving grants with no openness or accountability.

Under McGuinty's leadership the Liberals were sharply criticized by Ontario's Auditor General for the way they doled out over $32 million dollars in grants to multicultural organizations. The catch was that you had to know someone to get a chance to get funded, which left many organizations in the dark. The Ontario Cricket Association did well, however. They asked the province for $150,000 and got a clean $1 million dollar - 666% more than they'd asked for. So the OCA has $500,000 left over in an interest-earning GIC.

H is for the health tax hike.

McGuinty promised not to raise taxes, but almost as soon as he was elected he introduced a $2.8 billion dollar tax hike. When McGuinty found a $2.3 billion dollar surplus did he do the right thing and eliminate or at least start to phase out the hated tax? No. It was election time again, so he gave away our tax dollars in the hope that he would be re-elected.

I is for the immigrants who were betrayed.

McGuinty promised he would eliminate barriers to foreign trade professionals within one year. He also committed to see that qualified immigrants would be accepted by trades and professions within one year. These are just two more broken promises, with qualified immigrants left in low-paying jobs.

J is for the lack of justice in our province.

McGuinty's Attorney General appeared on television when a newspaper boy was bitten by an alleged "pit bull" and needed a few stitches. Yet when a young woman was gunned down, murdered, while shopping on Boxing Day where was the outrage or even just a public appearance from the same Attorney General? The McGuinty Liberals made one thing clear. Public safety was very important to them if it centred around an issue that makes people mad, like letting Karla Homolka free or banning dogs that have a bad rep. Too bad about all those other people who needed their attention, like the citizens who have been shot, stabbed or swarmed.

K is for not keeping his word.

McGuinty must have missed the lessons on honest, integrity and keeping your promises that most of us learned in Kindergarten.

L is for the lack of consultation.

Instead of working with concerned interest groups, McGuinty's government shut them out and simply pushed through legislation. It was his-way or the highway.

M is for the multicultural grants given to groups with strong Liberal ties.

One organization in Richmond Hill was too new to qualify for a grant under normal programs. There is no written record of a grant application, but somehow they got $200,000 to build a community centre. Since they don't have land yet that money now sits in the group's bank account. After getting the grant two board members moved on in their career. One became the local Liberal candidate while the other became the president of the local Liberal riding association.

N is for the 8,000 nurses McGuinty failed to hire, despite his election promise.

Just one more way that McGuinty has let our healthcare system down.

O is for Ontario, which has suffered under McGuinty's rule.

Once the most prosperous province in Canada, last year Ontario ranked 10th out of 10 for its economic growth and our unemployment rate has moved consistently above the national average.

P is for protecting the innocent.

The powers of the justice system have failed to work on one of the most important issues facing our province, the murder of our children on the streets and even in their schools. This issue didn't play well in sound bites, so while the media covered it extensively, action from the McGuinty Liberals was virtually non-existent.

Q is for the questions that were pushed aside during the 2007 election campaign.

Like a skilled politician, McGuinty put his career ahead of the issues during the 2007 election campaign. He used the issue of faith based funding to pre-empt important discussions about healthcare, taxes, education, poverty and the environment. For the record McGuinty is totally opposed to faith based funding, which he sees as divisive. Incidentally, McGuinty's children go to a Catholic school, Ontario's only publicly funded faith based school.

R is for not reducing auto insurance as promised.

McGuinty said he would reduce auto rates by 10% within 90 days of elected. Did he? Of course not. Chalk it up to yet one more broken promise.

S is for not spending every penny of the new health tax on healthcare.

McGuinty said that he would spend every penny of the new health tax on healthcare. What really happened is that health care dollars went into general revenues and McGuinty went on to cut healthcare services, starting with eye exams, chiropractic treatment and physiotherapy.

T is for the tolls on the 407 highway.

During the election McGuinty promised to roll back tolls on the 407 highway. This, of course, did not happen.

U is for failing to unclog emergency rooms.

McGuinty promised that he would unclog emergency rooms. He failed to deliver and people like Patricia Vepari have died as a result. In February 2005 the 21-year-old engineering student in Kitchener-Waterloo decided to go home after waiting in an emergency room for 8 hours. She then died at home of her infection.

V is for the victims of crime.

McGuinty said he would provide legal rights for the victims of crime, but his Attorney General was too busy banning sushi, t-shirts and dogs to pay attention to those truly in need. So another promise bit the dust.

W is for the whipped votes, another broken election promise.

McGuinty said he would allow non-cabinet MPPs to criticize and vote against government legislation. As it turns out there was too much to criticize, so votes were whipped and McGuinty broke yet another promise.

X is for excruciating.

Which is exactly what another four years of the McGuinty Liberals would be like.

Y is for "yesterday's man".

The people of Ontario bought McGuinty's song and dance once. With the issue of faith-based schools now open to a free vote, McGuinty should be none other than yesterday's man in the October 10th election.

Z is for zero.

That's exactly how many more chances McGuinty and his Liberals should get when voters go to the poll on October 10, 2007.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions on this important topic.

On April 29, 1998, Courtney Trempe died when she was bitten on the neck by a bullmastiff while playing at a friend’s house in Stouffville. Ontario’s Coroner held an inquest and the jury made 35 recommendations, in particular, that the reliance on municipal bylaws was inadequate to safeguard the public from dangerous dogs.

On October 26, 2003, an 11-year-old girl suffered serious injuries after she was attacked by two of her grandmother’s Dogue de Bordeaux dogs in Uxbridge. The girl had over 150 puncture wounds, extensive nerve damage, and her leg had been chewed to the bone.

On August 28, 2004, a 25-year-old Toronto man was seriously injured after he was mauled by pit bulls he was walking for a friend. The man was rescued by the police, who shot the dogs.

These incidents, and others like them, convinced us that provincial action was necessary to protect the public from dangerous pit bulls.

The Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act (formerly Bill 132) is now law and the government has implemented the legislation. That legislation bans pit bulls and toughens penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public.

We are committed to building safe, strong communities and to protecting Ontarians. We passed this legislation to respond to the concerns of Ontarians about their personal safety, and we stand behind this law. We heard loud and clear that Ontarians want to be protected from pit bulls. We have established strict regulations for existing pit bulls, making owners more responsible and helping make Ontario communities safer.

Not only did we protect Ontarians from vicious pit bulls, but we also protected them from irresponsible owners of any dangerous dogs. The legislation that we passed also increase fines up to a maximum of $10,000 and allow jail sentences up to six months for owners whose dogs are involved in an attack ($60,000 fines for corporations were also passed).

We believe this law will help protect not only Ontarians, but also many Ontario dogs that might otherwise themselves become the victims of pit bull attacks. We have set high standards for responsible dog ownership in the province of Ontario, and we are proud of our record.

Per your request, I have included a photo of my family and I with our dog, Clover. I have attached the answers to your questions below. Thank you again for the opportunity to respond.

Sincerely,

Chris Bentley

Liberal Candidate – London West

1. If the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) came up today for a free rather than a whipped vote as happened in 2005, would you vote in favour of banning breeds as an effective way to protect people from dog bites? Please explain.

Yes, we would, but only in respect of pit bulls. We have no plans to expand the Dog Owner’s Liability Act to ban other dangerous breeds.

Vigorous regulation of irresponsible owners is an important part of protecting the public from dog bites. That is why the legislation that we passed increases fines up to a maximum of $10,000 and allows jail sentences up to six months for owners whose dogs are involved in an attack.

However, incidents like those described above pose an unacceptable level of risk to Ontarians. We heard loud and clear that Ontarians want to be protected from the menace of pit bulls.We passed a ban on pit bulls to respond to the concerns of Ontarians about their personal safety, and we proudly stand behind that law.

2. Please tell our readers why you think the 'pit bull' ban enacted by the McGuinty government has or has not been successful in protecting the public from dog bites.

Our legislation bans pit bulls and toughens penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public. It also requires that pit bulls be muzzled in public. These measures protect the public from bites from these dangerous dogs.

3. Would you be willing, if elected, to work to rescind Ontario's amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) and replace it with an existing, easily implemented Canadian system that has been effective in the control of negligent pet owners, that is supported by all responsible pet owners and that once established is fully funded by dog and cat owners rather than through general revenue taxation? Please briefly explain your response.

No. We passed a ban on pit bulls to respond to the concerns of Ontarians about their personal safety, and we proudly stand behind that law.

4. How important to you is the issue of amending Ontario's animal cruelty legislation, the Ontario SPCA Act, using a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is 'not at all important' and 10 is 'extremely important')?

Very important. That is why the McGuinty government increased annual funding for the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Ontario SPCA) to $500,000 annually to support inspector and agent training and provided $100,000 in one-time funding for Ontario SPCA agents to work with the Ministry of Natural Resources to implement an interim zoo inspection plan.

A future Liberal government will modernize the Ontario Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals Act to regulate premises such as roadside zoos, make cruelty to animals a provincial offence and ensure there are serious consequences for people who abuse animals.

*

OK, I'm really trying to be professional and objective and everything when posting these surveys but I can't hold back any longer.

These people are just plain crazy. There, I said it and I'm glad.

I might get around to commenting on this later, after my anti-sarcasm medication takes effect.

I'm sure your comments will be more entertaining and incisive than mine, so let 'er rip, Dick!